Gay Marriage in America

[LittleSoldier]

I sometimes say “our Church” (in fact, probably most often). At other times I say “your Church,” and only when people act surprised as if some kind of foreign entity is coming up with a concept they have never heard before. It is all 3: your Church, my Church, our Church. It would help not to personalize too much, when it is not intended as “condescending” or a personal statement.

Precisely because

is why Catholic Answers and several other groups/agencies compiled – from separate documents – the 5 “non-negotiables” (preferably, Moral Absolutes). And they chose these five issues because these are the issues likely to be voted on in any given election cycle. They are not “located in one place” because Rome, and the Bishops, address issues as they come up, first of all, and secondly because official documents tend to stick to certain themes at one time, as opposed to being “all over the map.”

Several of us have been attacked rather personally on this thread. We have a right to defend ourselves as long as we use civil language in that attempt. If you do not like the tone of a thread, it is your privilege and right to ignore the thread. I often do that myself. There are several threads which I feel now, or from time to time, are “too hot to handle,” or are unpleasant. I pass on those. That is also in keeping with Forum Rules, which suggest that you and me and everybody else should ignore and not visit threads which upset us or to which we cannot contribute except negatively. I cannot be accused of contributing only negatively to this thread. That is transparently not true.

My remark was not personal and I’m sorry you took it that way. I suppose I should have posted it to “everyone” or “thread participants” or reported every hostile post to the moderator.

As everyone has a right to defend themselves everyone also has a right to note increasing hostility in a thread. Sometimes it is not obvious to the thread participants who are posting but is very obvious to lurkers (e.g. me).

I am not upset and I do not believe I am contributing only negatively to this thread. In fact, I believe my posts have been positive. I haven’t stated that anyone else’s posts are negative so I’m a bit confused here. But please, let’s let it drop. It was just a suggestion. I want to discuss the issues, not posters; I want to be charitable; and I will not engage in any fighting as that goes against my nature.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Hopefully you already know that in terms of positions regarding sexuality, Catholics for Choice is not in communion with the magisterium, right? They may in fact include some legitimately Catholic viewpoints in their platform, but I wouldn’t worry too much about what they say about sexuality (acting on it, etc.) — not in general or as it applies to you personally.


You’ll be fine if you stick with authentically Catholic sources which have been proven trustworthy. There’s temptation and heresy all around us, requiring us to keep our moral rudders centered and not be too concerned with the many ways we can spin out.

I’m poorly catechized; I’m not an idiot!

 

[StAnastasia]

Nor is it true that the Church’s other teachings are “negotiable” or of lesser import than these five. If the bishops or the Church wanted to highlight only these five things they could do so, but they did not. Now some Catholics are suggesting that the bishops did set aside these five teachings as outweighing all others, or at least they are suggesting that “serious” Catholics should act as if they did. I think that serious Catholics should read what the Church actually teaches on the topic.

I assume there are a lot more than five non-negotiables, including

(1) the Trinity
(2) the humanity and divinity of Christ
(3) the resurrection of the body
(4) the double procession of the spirit
(5) the communion of saints

 

[Elizabeth502]

I guess the problem I have is when the viewpoint of a particular group, be it Catholic Answers or any other group, is put forth as the Church’s viewpoint. The conflict between Catholic Answers’ list and the Church’s actual teaching is that neither the Church nor the bishops have ever set aside these five topics as “non-negotiable”

I already acknowledged that. Again, this is a guide. If C.A. (or their “Action” arm) present these as “non-negotiable” in some official Church documents, they should be called on it (or be required to name such documents). However, I do not think they are claiming that, and therefore cannot be faulted. Unlike you, I am not troubled by it. And most practicing Catholics I encounter have not expressed concern about it; they understand them to be a guide and nothing else.

(suggesting they are more important than other topics)

As I mentioned to LittleSoldier, they compiled this list because these 5 topics are the most likely actionable moral issues in society today, not because all of them are “more important.” However, do understand that the Church considers abortion to be in fact the single most important “topic.”

nor is it true that the Church’s other teachings are “negotiable” or of lesser import than these five.

I do not read in the title or the statements that other teachings are “negotiable” by contrast. Please refer to what I wrote earlier on this, relative to voting issues and nothing else. This is a voter’s guide, not a life guide, a spirituality guide, a lifestyle guide, a comprehensive moral theology guide. As such, they are not the only important issues (vs. the Church’s social justice concerns). However, understand that Life issues in general are paramount in the eyes of the Church. For example, if one candidate favored legalized euthanasia but vigorously supported social justice issues, but another candidate opposed euthanasia, the Church most likely would guide the Catholic voter to favor candidates more like #2 than #1, without endorsing or campaigning for individual politicians. (If, for example, an individual lay Catholic were to approach his or her parish priest.) That’s because Life issues are considered more urgent and “radical” /fundamental by the Church than many other nevertheless moral issues.

I think that serious Catholics should read what the Church actually teaches on the topic.

I think virtually all serious Catholics already do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I assume there are a lot more than five non-negotiables, including

(1) the Trinity
(2) the humanity and divinity of Christ
(3) the resurrection of the body
(4) the double procession of the spirit
(5) the communion of saints

Those are not voting issues.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Those are not voting issues.

I think it’s sad that any of the non-negotiable issues (or whatever anyone wants to call them; they really are non-negotiable) are up to a vote as though Truth is subject to change. I understand *why *they are voting issues. I just find it very, very sad.

I wish the Second Coming would happen right now.

 

[TMC]

I already acknowledged that. Again, this is a guide. If C.A. (or their “Action” arm) present these as “non-negotiable” in some official Church documents, they should be called on it (or be required to name such documents). However, I do not think they are claiming that, and therefore cannot be faulted. Unlike you, I am not troubled by it. And most practicing Catholics I encounter have not expressed concern about it; they understand them to be a guide and nothing else.

As I mentioned to LittleSoldier, they compiled this list because these 5 topics are the most likely actionable moral issues in society today, not because all of them are “more important.” However, do understand that the Church considers abortion to be in fact the single most important “topic.”

I do not read in the title or the statements that other teachings are “negotiable” by contrast. Please refer to what I wrote earlier on this, relative to voting issues and nothing else. This is a voter’s guide, not a life guide, a spirituality guide, a lifestyle guide, a comprehensive moral theology guide. As such, they are not the only important issues (vs. the Church’s social justice concerns). However, understand that Life issues in general are paramount in the eyes of the Church. For example, if one candidate favored legalized euthanasia but vigorously supported social justice issues, but another candidate opposed euthanasia, the Church most likely would guide the Catholic voter to favor candidates more like #2 than #1, without endorsing or campaigning for individual politicians. (If, for example, an individual lay Catholic were to approach his or her parish priest.) That’s because Life issues are considered more urgent and “radical” /fundamental by the Church than many other nevertheless moral issues.

I think virtually all serious Catholics already do.

What possible meaning or value could there be to identifying five issues as “non-negotiable,” if the other issues are not either negotiable or at least of lesser importance? The Church puts out a very nice publication on exactly this topic. The only reason that this competing voting guide is published is, well, to compete with the bishops’ official guide. It conflicts with the Church’s actual teaching by elevating five issues as the only ones that Catholics need consider when voting, and that is not consistent with the Church’s teaching.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What possible meaning or value could there be to identifying five issues as “non-negotiable,” if the other issues are not either negotiable or at least of lesser importance? The Church puts out a very nice publication on exactly this topic. The only reason that this competing voting guide is published is, well, to compete with the bishops’ official guide. It conflicts with the Church’s actual teaching by elevating five issues as the only ones that Catholics need consider when voting, and that is not consistent with the Church’s teaching.

No. That’s not what it does. It does not contradict Church teaching or bishops’ statements. It does not say or imply that “only” these issues are of importance in discerning voting decisions. The “Guide” does not say this, so please stop representing that C.A. Action has stated that only these, exclusively, are important to consider when voting. There is nothing in the “intrinsic evil” nature of the 5 points that is not wholeheartedly supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by the bishops, etc. They were listed because they are moral absolutes and intrinsic evils, not because they are the

only ones that Catholics need consider when voting

 

[Elizabeth502]

What possible meaning or value could there be to identifying five issues as “non-negotiable,” if the other issues are not either negotiable or at least of lesser importance? The Church puts out a very nice publication on exactly this topic. The only reason that this competing voting guide is published is, well, to compete with the bishops’ official guide. It conflicts with the Church’s actual teaching by elevating five issues as the only ones that Catholics need consider when voting, and that is not consistent with the Church’s teaching.

Just a postscript on this, which should be obvious:
I don’t know why you keep challenging me personally on why Catholic Answers Action came up with their list. I am not a member of that group, nor have they ever approached me for any kind of collaboration. If you want to keep beating what I consider to be a dead horse at this point (Questions Asked and Answered), it would be best if you demanded of the authors of that document what their intention was or

What possible meaning or value could there be to identifying five issues as “non-negotiable,”

It is not productive to ask a third party to interpret from a distance, or to defend, the motivations of a second party.

 

[TMC]

No. That’s not what it does. It does not contradict Church teaching or bishops’ statements. It does not say or imply that “only” these issues are of importance in discerning voting decisions. The “Guide” does not say this, so please stop representing that C.A. Action has stated that only these, exclusively, are important to consider when voting. There is nothing in the “intrinsic evil” nature of the 5 points that is not wholeheartedly supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by the bishops, etc. They were listed because they are moral absolutes and intrinsic evils, not because they are the

Yes, that is exactly what it does. It explicitly instructs Catholics to rank candidates based on their stance on these five issues and vote accordingly. That is the purpose of the guide and what it does. The Church teaches on many topics and none of the Church’s teaching is negotiable, and the Church teaches that we are to take all of it into account, not rank candidates based on only these issues.

 

[TMC]

Just a postscript on this, which should be obvious:
I don’t know why you keep challenging me personally on why Catholic Answers Action came up with their list. I am not a member of that group, nor have they ever approached me for any kind of collaboration. If you want to keep beating what I consider to be a dead horse at this point (Questions Asked and Answered), it would be best if you demanded of the authors of that document what their intention was or

It is not productive to ask a third party to interpret from a distance, or to defend, the motivations of a second party.

This is an ironic complaint in light of your posts claiming that I am dishonest or making “misrepresentations,” as you put it. I have not challenged you personally on anything but your own statements that the five non-negotiables are Church teaching. You have apparently backed off on that assertion, so I suppose that point is moot.

 

[toughntiny]

Because we’re not really a “Christian Nation” but a melting pot of many cultures and religions, so pressing religious viewpoints just makes you look arrogant and ignorant. I like to protest against marriage by explaining how it’s “biologically wrong” and that seems to win more opinions over than the “because God said it’s wrong” many people don’t believe in God/

 

[qui_est_ce]

Those are not voting issues.

Yes, that would be a non-sequitor.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is an ironic complaint in light of your posts claiming that I am dishonest or making “misrepresentations,” as you put it. I have not challenged you personally on anything but your own statements that the five non-negotiables are Church teaching. You have apparently backed off on that assertion, so I suppose that point is moot.

I have never once accused you of “dishonesty.” That is your inappropriate term, and another example of misrepresentation.

I have not challenged you personally on anything but your own statements that the five non-negotiables are Church teaching.

Again with the misrepresentations.

I meant that the content of the 5 non-negotiables are solid Church teaching, as repeated recently here by Michelle. They all correspond to the Catechism, the Encylicals, and other Church documents (statements by bishops, and more). …
There is zero conflict between the principles of the Voters’ Guide and the moral teaching of the magisterium. They in fact reflect Church teaching.

it is only the term “non-negotiable” that is not expressly encased in formal Catholic teaching. That is all. How anyone who has been following any of the formal statements from the hierarchy of the last 10 years cannot know that the 5 principles outlined in the optional “Voter’s Guide” are part of essential Catholic teaching, I don’t know.

The 5 so-called (again, optional) “non-negotiables” are simply 5 Moral Absolutes proclaimed by your Church, over and over in the last 10-15 years, minimum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMC

You have claimed that Catholic Answers five non-negotiables were Church teaching.

Response Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

I never said that they emanated from the magisterium. ***That would be the category of “Church teaching.” ***I said, and sitll say, that they derived from the same 5 principles just accurately reposted by Michelle, which are incontravertible as moral absolutes, not as political directives. They are not political directives. They are guides to consider when voting.

My conversation with St.Anastasia, in which I introduced the non-negotiables, was in reference to moral statements, not political ones, or political action – hers, mine, or Catholic Answers’.

You have apparently backed off on that assertion.

I have never backed off on the content of the moral absolutes (intrinsic evils) which are listed in all 5 elements of the voting guide to which you so vociferously object. That is the only fact I ever claimed. That’s the part that is “moot.” It is only you who have stated repeatedly that I claimed (which I did not) that the term “non-negotiable” is part of Church teaching. I never said that, and my posts above prove I never said it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, exactly. It’s interesting that you saw clearly that the same view can be applied to polygamy. I’m aware that there are polygamist-families and from time-to-time the news reports that a local DA prosecutes those involved. While polygamy is not something I would find rewarding, I wonder why folks don’t simply live their lives as such without the formal marriage(s). I think the term is “common-law marriage”…living together.

As far as drug-use, I agree with the old American attitude that was prominant before the early 20th century: Americans believed that each had a right to ingest whatever they wanted as freemen in a “free society”. (Adults, that is.) But we digress.

I’m not arguing the morality of these situations, (homosexual behaviors, gay marriage, polygamy, drug use, etc.) I’m really wanting to know the logic which would cause me to restrict (by law) others who choose to become…gayly-married.

For me, this all turns on the American concept of a free-society. Bottom-line: do I have a duty as a Catholic to restrict other Americans’ behaviors that cause no harm to anyone?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Glennonite

I’ve gone back to near the beginning of the thread so that I can respond without worrying about non-negotiable anything.

I had the same problem with wondering why homosexual marriage would be wrong. I thought that it wouldn’t hurt anyone so what is the big deal? But obviously the Church does believe that it is a big deal and as a Catholic I believe the Church is the Body of Christ and if I am told to accept a belief from the Church I accept it even if I have problems doing so. The problem of accepting it has to do with my not understanding Church teaching, not the Church teaching itself. And so I do what the OP has done: I ask. And I read and research until I can reconcile Church teaching with my own confused beliefs. And then I understand.

It does harm someone. Each homosexual union harms at least two people; the homosexuals in the relationship. It also harms any children they may adopt or produce (well, one produces the child; I’m assuming here you know what I mean, it’s late and difficult for me to explain such a simple concept). Homosexual behavior is sinful; it hurts the soul, it takes the homosexuals further from God, and it introduces more evil into the world. Every evil act hurts everyone just as every good act helps everyone. Evil is pervasive. It moves into every little corner and space, cutting off a bit of God’s light.

Every single bit of evil is harmful; even when it isn’t obvious. It makes our world more broken.

The first step for me was knowing what the Church teaches about homosexual behavior.
The second step was accepting Church teaching.
The third step was reconciling that teaching with my own confused beliefs.
The fourth step was understanding the pervasive effect of sin (evil). This should have been the first step but for me it wasn’t.

And now I understand why homosexual activity is sinful (evil) and why it harms every single person in the world. I can’t accept that it is ever appropriate just as I can never accept that a direct abortion or a suicide (even my own) is appropriate. It just isn’t. God has said so.

Now if I can just understand why the Church will not allow a couple who is unable to consummate a marriage to be married I will feel I’ve taken a few steps down the road of my spiritual journey.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I assume there are a lot more than five non-negotiables, including

(1) the Trinity
(2) the humanity and divinity of Christ
(3) the resurrection of the body
(4) the double procession of the spirit
(5) the communion of saints

I have to admit that I had no idea what #4 meant. It sounded very mysterious and interesting so I googled it. Evidently I know more than I thought; I just don’t know what many things are called. Nicene Creed. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

I’ve learned a lot today just from googling “the double procession of the spirit,” including a couple of heresies and a lot of history.

Thank you.

 

[StAnastasia]

IIt does harm someone. Each homosexual union harms at least two people; the homosexuals in the relationship. It also harms any children they may adopt.

Would you take away children adopted by homosexual couples? If so, at what age? Two couples in our parish adopted girls from Chinese orphanages, and their daughters ended up in my older son’s class. One couple were infertile heterosexuals; the other were infertile lesbians. Both girls are close friends of my son; both are turning into exceptionally talented young women with a healthy interest in teenage boys!

 

[StAnastasia]

I have to admit that I had no idea what #4 meant. It sounded very mysterious and interesting so I googled it. Thank you.

The Orthodox believe that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (not from the Son).

 

[Wardog]

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…unions_en.html

This link takes you to a thoughtful and carefully written piece on the Catholic Church’s approach to same sex marriages. It is very useful guide for voters to review.
But the last paragraph contains specific directions to the Catholic politicians on what their position should be. Does anyone else see a problem with a religious leader who is also a head of state giving political direction to our Congressmen and President?

 

[StAnastasia]

Every evil act hurts everyone just as every good act helps everyone. Evil is pervasive. It moves into every little corner and space, cutting off a bit of God’s light. Every single bit of evil is harmful; even when it isn’t obvious. It makes our world more broken.

LittleSoldier, can you please elaborate on this? If every bit of evil makes the world “more broken” (I’m not clear on what that means), does every bit of good make the world less broken? Or is this a one-way process?

We have a gay choir director and a couple of lesbian families in the parish, with their kids in our parish school. Can you show me the ways in which our parish is now “more broken”? Is this physical brokenness, or psychological? I want to be able to look for the signs. The roof is still intact, and the lighting and plumbing are not broken.

StAnastasia